Readers' comments

The best way to generate good stewardship of the forests is to give the power of decision to the people who care about sustainability.
Ecosystems and soils can be destroyed overnight.
In areas of good farmland 50% reforestation is acceptable, but this is only sustainable if the lands cleared stay productive without destroying the adjoining forest ecosystem.
Protecting lands that provide better service untouched is the key. These lands will buffer and support intensive agriculture if engineered properly.
The key is to be flexible with forest management by trying different solutions to each site. Reassessing site impacts 1-3-5 and 10 years is proper.

I hope Brazilians decide to preserve their forests just because they have more to gain than they would have otherwise. Not because Europeans, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, etc think they should. After all these are no good examples, after all the devastation they did on a worldwide scale and in their own homes.

Given the progress of genetics, which is actually clearly accelerating every year, there is almost surely much more to gain from biodiversity than from commodity crop increases.

Brazil has already enough deforested land that would probably allow them to more than double their agricultural business, just by improving the cultivating techniques (which they already possess).

One can't "reforest" that rain forest, the recovery has to come gradually, naturally , by itelf and, the way things are handled, it will never be.
Only a jughead , a dumb or a "green" would come with such stupid idea.
There was that huge wood farm in the 70s, owned by an American who cut the original precious wood and planted fast growing pine. It did not "reforest" anything because that changes the natural balance, it changes the ground level of acidity, it has influence on the local fauna , too.

I dare to say that Brazilians would be glad in changing their economy from primary based to the hightech industry of the Silicon Valley. But they don't have the tools for inovation - qualified people and adequate regulation, for instance - and they know how to plant and spoon - brazilian production per area is a benchmark in a plenty of plantations. Moreover they need feed themselves and feed China, Africa etc.. Brazil is the third largest exporter of grains in the world, behind USA and Europe (both of them in temperate zones and without areas to expand). Somebody had to do that and they know how to do it well.
Try to wonder our world if each country in the world preserve the same proportion of land that brazilians do: world would be a paradise.
To demand is necessary to do the homework first, otherwise we could only to advise. Let's preserve together!

That´s the point isn´t it? Brazil is one of the countries who incorporates the Amazon in it´s territory (About 60% of the Amazon is in Brazil) and yet Brazil is one of the worst protectors of that resource along with Peru. Colombia etc., do a much better job protecting their parts of the Amazon.

You said "Try to wonder our world if each country in the world preserve the same proportion of land that brazilians do: world would be a paradise"

Actually, the forrests of Siberia and Canada etc are bigger than the Amazon!

Now YOU try to wonder, what if other countries destroyed for short term gain (not even for the nation but just the few beneficiaries) their natural resources in the same way Brazil does and then see what an Anti-paradise the world would be. Especially considering that the Amazon is the only large forrest in the southern hemisphere of this plannet!

Are you starting to get some idea of the global responsibility owning 60% of the Amazon reprisents? It´s a clear example of South American neo-colonialism perpertrated by South Americans!

Thanks for your comments. I will not defend deforestation, but some informations will help on debate. Actually, deforestation in Canada is twice the Brazil's, although their forests (Amazon and Boreal) have almost the same area, 500MM ha each. The siberian forest is the biggest, 800MM ha - there's less developmental pressure but they do not are left behind in deforestation skills. Peruan (400MM ha) deforestation is about 3 times smaller than brazilian's and canadian's. However Brazil economy is rich in agriculture and cattle that demand great areas of land. In other great countries like USA remain untouched less than 5% of the original forests! If Brazil is not a benchmark on the other hand projecting its remaining forests rates for all over world we would continue in the cited paradise.
The point is: to blame brazilians isn't the best strategy to preserve their forest, neither the fairest. They know that every rich country in their development process destroyed somehow their "natural resources" and how do we say that only their forest will make the diference? First we must give them a good example, later invite them: let's preserve together?
Cause hate is never the best answer.

Reading all these comments I'm feel unconfortable to give my oppinion, after all there is too much specialists among The Economist readers. But for those who don't know the size of the problem, I would advice to check at Google earth the view above amazonia. It's really fascinating how an area so big is yet so much conservated. Although, my family has a small farm here in Brazil, and I'm one of those guys pursuiting for flexibilization of the laws. Brazil needs clear rules. Today you need for everything a envirolment licence, very bureacratic an expensives. And you can receive a fine for everything (seriously, creating cattle at the grass tecnically needs a licence).
The real chalenge is exploring the amazon in an adequate way. The world will need it. Not defending Brazil or its capabilities, bur the country has more potential (arable land), than any other - estimatives rely on 550 million hectares - with good soil and weather (two crops a year). Only 1/3 of this potential is beeing used. And in a few decades, it will be almost ten billion people on earth, consuming two or three times more than now. Who will supply it? The rich ones will have to afford, bit what about the millions of miserables in Africa for example? Will they have enough to pay for the price of the corn, rice, meet?

Your opinions are welcome, and your english mistakes have
been less than mine. Good job.
As far as what you said is concerned, one picture can
tell a thousand words.http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/19/amazon_wideweb__430x265.jpg
Unchecked development in the Amazon Basin has led to
an unbalanced condition in nature.http://www.reuters.com/video/2009/11/27/drought-kills-tonnes-of-amazon-f...
That is not taking in consideration the tremendous
deforestation in the Amazon itself.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvKvDEU92lA
The video above (over 1 hour worth let one go deep
in the Amazon).
About Brazil
-------------
Assuming the 550 million hectares were the maximum
potential, lessons from the past tells us that it
would be unwise to over extend natural resources.
Owens Valley, California, was overused to build Los
Angeles. You can search for pictures before and after
to have a glimpse of the over utilization consequences.
Sertão in Northeast Brazil was slashed and burned through
centuries to grow crops and raise cattle. This is a glimpse
of the Sertão today.http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z1kLwTNVEWo/TsbTo7TDStI/AAAAAAAAAMk/gXRhj3MZYF...
The following is a chronological account on Sertão
"Large patches of land along the coast were subject to soil degradation as farmers indiscriminately transformed the land into plantations, and deforestation also occurred in order to build engenhos. Towards the end of the 17th century, private explorers called bandeirantes undertook expeditions into the inland, and the discovery of gold in 1692 lead to a gold rush and rapid urbanization of major industrial sites. In 1822 the Empire of Brazil was founded which lasted until 1889, and during this period cattle ranching in the Northeastern sertao, the plains (cerrado) of Minas Gerais, and the pampas of Rio Grande do Sul became a major industry."
Source:http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/csj/csj2.html
As far as solutions to the 10 billion people on earth,
there are already Agribusiness Corporations with vast
resources and vision such as ADM, for instance. Some
Universities in the U.S. are leaders in Agribusiness
technology, and are constantly researching ways to
improve yields using less resources.
In addition, in places like the Texas Panhandle, there
are vast feedlots that minimize land use and maximize
resources to raise cattle. Infrastructure is very
efficient. The slaughter house is on the other side
of the highway just a few miles from the feedlots.
Even sick heifers that perished are disinfected and
reprocessed as dog or cat food. Just north of the Panhandle,
Oklahoma have reclaimed sandy land by adding nutrients to
the soil and introduced GM modified seeds that are resistant
to drought and require less water.
Bottom line:
We are no longer living in a time where indiscriminately
resources usage had no foreseeable consequences. Just to
illustrate to you the magnitude of the problem.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/plenty-less-fish-in-the-sea-dram...
Take a look at the fishing photos from 1950s to now (link
above). As you can see the catches gets smaller and smaller
as the decades go by. Imagine the fish catches by 2050.
Just as California has learned to conserve resources, and
use only 1% of the arable land to produce a yield that
satisfies consumers in the U.S. and abroad, so should
Brazil use less land with greater yields. After all,
there is only one planet for the world to live in.

Thanks for the reply, I would do a nice debate, but I'm out of time...
I was researching something about Israel, they really made a miracle there with so much few land. But they destroyed the majority of the environment that receives some kind of rain. Same thing with a lot of countries in the old world.
Fortunately, these pictures you posted, does not reflect the situation in Amazon Forest. These are isolated facts: dead fishes occurs at the end in every rain season, at the lagoons far away the rivers (sometimes more than the natural), and the "sertão", despite being suffering of a dry season, has excellent potentials. And really, the sertão, the dryest land in Brazil, receives more rain (20 to 35 inches per year) than grand part of the USA (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Average_precipitation...).

The problem of sertao is not the past exploration, is the actual one. People there have no knowledge, money, education, and even will to change things (this is not wrong - the will of acumulate and flourish is cultural, and a lot of societes don't have it as the north americans). There is a lot of cases from people who went there, and started irrigation fields, and are getting rich, even foreigners ones. I really don't beliave about using the land to produce food will lead us to destruction. Eventually, forcing the use, will then lead to it. But Brazil is far from it...

If it is a "Natural" occurrence, it would make sense
to build models in order to forecast such events.
15 tons even 5 tons of fresh fish could yield some
money, no? That is where infrastructure (facilities,
ice, logistics, food inspection, processing) would
turn a "Natural" occurrence into a profit.

2)Sertão - a NGO that works in Brazil has information
that disagree with your data. The quotes below are from
the video/link that follows.

"[Sertão]With 22 million people, it is the most densely populated semi-arid region in the world, and has the highest
concentration of poverty in all of Latin America." As far
as the precipitation you posted, the video clearly shows
the contrary. The only way some people are profiting is
by not using water as much and developing alternatives
to agriculture such as the goat herder and honey
production as reported in the video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHjyNWljK0

I'm so sorry, but your sources are being misused a bit. Sertao is a proportionally comparing small patch of land in the northeast of Brazil and your source is talking about Minas Gerais, the Pampas in the south of Brazil and other places that are thousands of kilometers far from the Sertao. Sertao was never arable land, it is its own climate called semi-arid since the discovery and the vegetation kind is called Caatinga. It was always a desertic patch of land as much as the middle os Australia, the Sahara, the Atacama, and parts of the US always were.

Now, I'm not defending the ruralistas, but I am just asking to fix your argument.

Another interesting article on a fascinating (if somewhat enigmatic) country. Another missed opportunity to have an informed and civilized discussion on said country. Unfortunately, any possibility of a debate on Brazil in this forum is completely prevented by the presence of what can only be described as a couple of complete pathetic losers who love to hate a country so much (I mean, seriously, what type of person hates a country ??). I suppose Jobim was not thinking about them when he wrote "one note samba"...

Anyway, the enigma you find so fascinating will be solved. You won't miss
an opportunity to find out about the country that fascinates you so much.
Make Jobim proud and read it. Oh! oh! before I forget... watch this footage
about Brazil from a mainstream Chinese TV news segment.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7FdYC7KzEw

hehehe...you will be completely more informed about the hehehe country
you hehehe L-O-V-E. Enjoooooooooooyyyyyyyyyyyy!

A small addition to the comparison table presented by the article:
According to the new law, riverbanks are still protected to 30-500 meters; the range of 5-100 meters must be restored, if it has been cleared or degraded.

The gist of your rebuttal is simply not true.
1)Yes,the United States have its global and regional interests. However,
it has been proven time and time again that U.S. interests do not
preclude nations from profiting and or rising.

Japan - was helped by the U.S. after the WW2, and became a major competitor.
it is not a Western nation.
Germany - was helped by the U.S. after WW2, and became a leader in many
industries, and a major competitor as well.
China - could have been blocked and influenced by the U.S on its rise. However,
it wasn't as the events unfolding over the last 34 years have shown.

The U.S. interfered in Latin America for two reasons:
1) Influences from outside would have eventually cause the U.S. grave harm.
2)Communism which was rightly defeated much later.

The U.S sought the less of the two evils present in Brazil, and chose the Military
for its ability to keep things in check. The U.S. did not micromanage the day
to day affairs inside Brazil. Since Brazil never had a decent government, and
people with vision at the helm, the U.S. had to deal with the cards it was dealt.
The past governments in Brazil never sought to educate the masses, improve
infrastructure, and allow a more freer internal competition. The system of
connections, jeitinho, lei de gerson, pistolao, crony capitalism, bureaucracy
laden government were all engender by Brazilians. To put it more bluntly,
The U.S. also supported Ferdinand Marcos, but Imelda gluttony for shoes
was not engineered by the U.S. It was her own. Likewise, the institutions and
ways of Brazil as well as the rapacious ways of the Brazilian "Elite." are all
their own.

Your assessment on brands is a poor excuse on why Brazil don't have them
comparatively to its massive size and potential. You are correct that everyone
sources stuff out and finds the cheapest source. If you want coconuts for
coconut juice, Thailand is the place. However, El Mexicano is its own brand,
and so is Amy & Brian, Tasco, etc. much like Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper are in
the carbonated beverages segment. Brazil does not have brands because
of its bureaucracy, laws that favors one segment or industry over another,
petty politics, and groups that battle other groups for supremacy in business
sectors.

If Brazil were in the U.N. Security Council, it would have voted with China and Russia
to keep Assad in power. Just to p*ss off the U.S. and the EU, and to show the world
it is "Rising." Did you see the footage on the children massacred by their own government?
How that goes down with the U.N. cheerleading crowd in Brazil? ??????

Many people in Latin America will say bad things about the U.S, and the UK.
However, time and history can prove detractors wrong.

UK did a fabulous job with Hong Kong. So much so that HKers would love to
have the UK back at the helm because every day Democracy and Rights
under the Law are being curtailed. Falklanders and Gibraltarians are free to
choose their government. However, other countries are intruding into Democracy.

The U.S. rebuilt its enemies, and it has been treated as an enemy by
a former ally (The Soviet Union and now Russia). The enemies build brands,
and extended their trade throughout the U.S. The former ally is as rich as
Brazil in raw materials, abudance of arable land, an educated population
(far more educated than Brazil's), and rearmed with advance weapons of
all sorts. Though it borders three continents, trade with its neighbors is
miniscule and insignificant. China sells more electronics and other manufactured
goods to Russia while Russia sells timber. Brazil and Russia are alike in many
ways.

Both are dysfunctional.
Both often blame outsiders for their problems.
Both have an "Elite" that controls power and a Mafia State that bungles everything
in their path.
Both countries are BRICs.
Both countries are extremely corrupt
Both countries are giants with an economy that much smaller countries
can beat handily in technology and innovation.
Both have only two large centers (Moscow/St. Petersburg; Sao Paulo/Rio de Janeiro).
Both idolize a father figure (Putin; Lula)

Both have deceived millions over centuries with their untapped potential
that will never be realized.

It's clear that you know absolutely nothing about Brazil!
We do NOT blame others for our problems, we do NOT have just two large centers.
And unless you are completely mad, there's no way to compare Lula to Putin. Even though Lula is admired in Brazil, he's far from being unanimity and he always respected democracy. That's the difference, Brazil has its problems but it's a democracy something that Russia has never tasted!

Those that create client states remain accountable throughout history for the illegitimacy and unaccountability of the regimes that they have nurtured and sustained.

There is only one destination for those regimes and for the empires that nurture despotic regimes, and that eventually is the dustbin.

Listening to the LBJ audio tapes on the military coup in Brazil makes civilised people puke. The detail of the COIN programmes in the Phillipines (and those that led them that went on (on the basis of the so-called success of the Phillipines adventure) to to lead war crime in the CIA orchestrated Tibetan insurgency, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia make people puke.

All we have left is the process of a military intelligence led white neo-liberal empire slowly disemboweling itself of legitimacy. Eventually you can blame this on the dearth of economic and social gains in territories that it annexes and willfully leaves in the hands of protected racketeers. That is what separates the empire's conduct in the "honorary white man" precincts of Marshal Plan Europe, Thailand, South Korea, and Japan with the others (the word democracy doesn't enter the picture, but freedom of sustainable local political movement based on the strategic neediness of the hegemon to secure those buffer states does).

If you haven't noticed the measured progress of the Brazil that ousted the US client state regime, with that of the Philippines that failed to do the same, clearly demonstrates the patent error of your argument.

And Brazilians might have swooned over Lula but that doesn't mean that they don't recognise his failings, or his regimes complicity in the corruption, and also that the greatest of his successes was to leave the earlier economic reforms and fiscal disciplinary controls in place. Despite her background and leftist base Dilma has taken on corruption in a manner that is surprising, she has also asserted Brazil's indepedence in foreign policy more stridently.

The US is simultaneously being left behind. COIN is now universally understood as merely a wrecker that can't hold state ground over even the medium term. Given your xenophobic world view is indeed representative of that of the white neo-liberal and neocon world, we don't expect that you will be able to actually deal with any economic or post imperial reality when your collateral is all exposed for smoke and the debts must be settled in hard money. Hence we expect that when the blame game begins at home you can expect the rise of a Lucas Cornelius Sulla. His lists will be full of the names of the neocon and neoliberal estates.

A summary from your lengthy paragraph above is nothing, but a spiel.
Brazil and other "Emerging" countries have no moral authority compared
to the U.S.

Why?

Brazil straddle the fence with Nazi Germany and the U.S. during World War 2
before siding with the U.S. in the war effort.

Brazil has tried unsuccessfully to join the League of Nations, and has a strong
ambition to be an U.N. Security Council Permanent Member. It tried to broker
a deal with Iran when the whole world condemned such irresponsible act.
The deal brokered by Lula was more a showboating act to draw attention to
Brazil as an "Emerging" nation than to do a bona fide Diplomatic feat. It was
also a finger in the U.S. eyes to demonstrate that Brazil is the other giant
to the South. Now, it does not take a genius to figure it out that Brazil would
have sided with Russia and China on the massacre in Syria (specially children).
Brazil only cares about being recognized and could care less about the real
hard issues that the world faces.

Brazil has never rebuilt Paraguay. The U.S. rebuilt Japan and Germany.
Brazil has offered China to train Chinese pilots in the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier.
No other nation has offered that kind of military assistance to China.

Your white this and that spiel can be quickly disproved.
The U.S. has roughly 14% African American population.
Brazil has roughly 51% African Brazilian population
1865 Slaves were freed in the U.S.
1888 Slaves were freed in Brazil

The U.S. was always overtly racist towards blacks, BUT it recognized its
past mistakes and open the door, ceiling, and windows for true African
American promotion and recognition, etc.
Scientists, Doctors, and Financial CEOs quickly rose in meritocracy.
Even entrepreneurs (not crony capitalists, not the connected/made) beat
established global industries on their own merits (Tyler Perry has his own
studios in Atlanta, and independent from Hollywood).

Brazil??????????
Name one dark skinned Brazilian CEO in the private sector.

So, before you pound on the B.S. do the homework in your vile country.
Perhaps after learning the truth about Brazil, you will think twice about
posting garbage.

The Ruralistas are the old UDR (União Democrática Ruralista - Ruralist Democratic Union) and is very strong. Thanks to the government we didn't let deforestation get a stage like Germany or US. But it's getting harder and harder..

All countries around the Amazon should try to do something like a transnational reserve like the one that is in Antartica. According to statistics, by 2030 only 10% of Peru´s rainforest will still be pristine and although others like Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia are doing a better job protecting their forests, Peru and Brasil are struggling a lot.
Instead of changing the laws which haven´t helpes significantly to protect the forest in favour of the lobbies, harder measures should be applied and subsidies and incentives to avoid deforestation should be employed.
I hope all the governments applied laws to protect the Amazon

Of course Brazil and the other South American countries should waive their own national territories for the sake of the "mankind"....brilliant idea...next step, to help pushing the first argument, will be to say that Brazil is a danger to the "world community" and participant of the "axis of the evil". The rest you know already how it works.

For me this kind of stupid thing about Amazon is not new, it comes up again and again from time to time whenever the guys "up north" need a scapegot "down south" (or "farway") to distract their own population about their own problems so they fabricate a new "enemy" to go after.

The Russians, Indians and Chineses have a simple solution for this kind of bullying against them: nuclear weapons. It works fine. So, may be Brazil has something to learn with the other BRICs...

Either Brazil has hired a bunch of Mr. Magoos (blind) or they can see
just fine the color of money.

BOTTOM LINE: The days of burning millions of kilometers unchecked and
without repercussion ARE OVER!!!!! There is only one planet and so much
land for Mankind. If the Amazon disappears tomorrow, mankind will greatly
suffer. Therefore, Brazil's irresponsible ways cannot continue. This is not
an excuse for "Imperialim" and other "Interventions" into Brazil or other
Latin American nation sovereignty. It is about the fate of HUMANITY!!!!!!!!

Your tag line on nuclear weapons is precisely what Lula was promoting
with his desire to obtain Nuclear Submarines for the Pre-Salt Oil Fields.
It is childish, and a throwback to centuries ago. We are living in the 21st
Century. Instead of spending those billions into education, and infrastructure
investments, Lula and others would rather have submarines to protect
a soon to be obsolete commodity.

Do you know who Carlos Ghosn is? Do you know Nissan Leaf is selling quite
way? Do you know about solar energy re-transmission from Space (a
possibility to disrupt the energy markets?). Oil may be around for a while,
but it won't be the main thing. Besides, it did not create better societies
where it is abudantly available (Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia).
These are all dysfunctional countries REGARDLESS of whether the US and others
were around in power or not.

"Unlike Brazil, U.S. National Parks are patrolled by
well trained and well armed personnel that not only
are professionals, but love nature and their country"

Over 95% of the United State's original forests have been destroyed (along with the native americans) during American history. What percentage of the American territory do these national parks make up???
When you talk about the fate of Humanity it's funny you fail to mention that the US is by far the largest contributor to global warming (and how in they past they refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol). In the current elections I haven't seen Romney and Obama debate global warming or the environment so far, and God help us if Romney is elected. According to the majority of his party global warming is a communist/green consipracy seeking to destroy American jobs...

The TransAmazon Highway is not completed. A project started in the 1970s.
In addition, there is no infrastructure such as gas stations hotels, and support
business to maximize Amazon access.

Brazil is patrolling just a third of its borders to discourage illegal logging, etc.
Instead of fighter jets, and Embraer radar support aircraft, how about getting
some drones to loiter 24/7 over the most critical areas?

Land Reform in a similar vein to Taiwan would do much good. However,
there is no political will for it.

Some areas of the Amazon have rare species that could provide medicines,
and the building ingredients for far more technological advances in biochemistry
etc than crops. If Brazil don't want to pursue that option, at least allow foreigners
to do so for a fee.

In the jungle, the law of the jungle is that there is no laws. If Brasilia is disorganized,
much more out in the jungle. Laws with bite and law enforcement (even if privately
contracted out to foreign operators) would go a long way to ensure stability in the
wild wild west of the Amazon.

It is impossible to have large swaths of land locked in alternative fuels and or
"feeding the world." California is nowhere the size of Brazil, yet fruits and vegetables
from California's Central Valley provide not only the U.S. , but also foreign markets
with a bountiful harvest. Could Brazil provide its people and key markets using
less land? Of course, it could, but it won't.

There should be a balance between large operators and a family farmer. Since
Brazil is so heavily tilted towards agribusiness, there should be room enough
for both to thrive and profit.

Finally, Brazilians are many decades behind in food marketing and processing
crops into industrialized goods with a global brand name. If Brazil were smart,
it would allow foreign operators to market those crops from the harvest into
premium products such as Diamond Foods like industrialized products,
and Jumex like juices, etc. etc. Of course, some here will say that Brazil
already produce some of that. The question is who can name off the tip of their
tongue in the global market place a single Brazilian brand like that????

The Amazon like the rest of Brazil is being squandered and it is being
used to enrich a connected few. Things remain the same since the Coffee
Barons and the Rubber Barons days.

You probably don´t know that Anheurser-Bush and Burger King Corporations,for example, are controlled by Brazilians.
Based in your statement we should produce beer and beef to these two companies.We don´t, not even inside Brazil.If you eat a Wopper in Brazil, its Paraguayan beef.
Brazilian multi billionaires own companies like Natura, which deals with nature products, from many countries. So there is no need for foreign expertise already. The problem is that the companies you mention don´t rely on specific countries or area, they like to rely on their brands only, wherever the raw inputs come from, they just don´t care, they would buy it for the cheapest price they can find, and the sources change all the time.

"There should be a balance between large operators and a family farmer."
Large operators don´t destroy forests, the cheap and small ones, combined, do.Its incredibly easy to find and fine a large operator, in a large operation everybody is aware of.
California police, firemen, national army, seals, marines, helicopters, planes etc...can´t stop a bush fire in Barbra Streisand Malibu´s mansion backyard, even if she is singing the most annoying note ever to cheer them.
Most of the time the FBI won´t find the kid who started the fire.

Professional, big farmers in Brazil are extremely rich, they have full access to the latest and most expensive technology and equipment, without government subsidies the American and Euro farmers have. Brazilians are among the richest and more technical farmers in the world. Some countries won´t even buy beef from "high tech", but cold countries, where the cattle has to be locked in a filthy barn most of the time.
Grain farmers here are among the most productive ones per area.

The problem is among the large number of old school little farmers, who can´t buy land(one of the most expensive land in the planet, sunny skies), so they set little fires here and there to "make room" for their cattle , cut wood to sell it(good part of it to foreigns)in order to buy gear and finance their farming.
"Things remain the same since the Coffee Barons and the Rubber Barons days."
Coffee Barons are directly responsible for developing almost all industry and construction in Brazil, and when they run those businesses, they were adequate to the country´s needs.
Rubber Barons were extremely important to many industries around the world, Theodore Roosevelt would come to Brazil just the remind the world how important they were.

What keeps Brazil behind today is taxation and the lack of government performance to built infrastructure.
Any foreign company would have to pay at least the same amount of taxes Brazilians pay, if not more. And we all know that no gringo would ever survive paying all the taxes we have to pay, as they are used to pay little taxes and interest.

1)Here we go again. Another Brazilian telling someone
"He does not know Brazil." Do you even know me? How
can you tell what I know or don't know?

2)Re-read my post. I did not mentioned either one
of these companies. You did.

3)You are wrong on brands. Brazil has a ridiculous low
amount of brands, and as far as consumer brands even
less for its size. Your coffee Barons never bothered
to develop a Starbucks when they held a near monopoly
on global production. Your rubber Barons never bothered
to develop industrialized products when rubber was
discovered in Brazil. Tapioca is indigenous from the
Amazon, but Brazilians never industrialized it on a
global scale. Enter Quickly Corporation from Taiwan
who put it in its many brand name teas. Buddy, there
are more Quickly stores in the U.S. than McDonald's
in some U.S. cities.

Tell me, what I don't know about Brazil?

Your spiel and lack of knowledge on California is
pitiful. Read this:

"The Central Valley is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions. On less than 1 percent of the total farmland in the United States, the Central Valley produces 8 percent of the nation’s agricultural output by value: 17 billion USD in 2002. Its agricultural productivity relies on irrigation from both surface water diversions and groundwater pumping from wells. About one-sixth of the irrigated land in the U.S. is in the Central Valley."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_%28California%29

4)Brazil never had a land reform like Taiwan, and a
Homestead Act like the U.S. Therefore, the small farmers
have no chance against the King of Soy, etc.

Brazil is not a balanced country when it comes to
opportunities, access to credit and capital, and
entrepreneurship. The red tape, bureaucracy, and
custo Brasil (Brazil Cost) is simply ridiculous.

My original post as a guest was to be helpful for
Brazil with ideas. From now on, it will be back
to pointing obvious errors so that the enthralled,
naive and unsuspecting will know the real Brazil.

I think you read my answer too fast and got angry before correct interpretation.
Some of your paragraphs are a loyal copy of what I wrote, just using different words.
Take your time, compare your and my answer, you will find out.

"You probably don´t know that Anheurser-Bush and Burger King Corporations,for example, are controlled by Brazilians."

Thomas, YOU evidently don´t know that the "Brazilian" company you are referring to is in turn owned by a Belgian and Czech company.
And it goes around and around...YOU DON´T Know Brazil.... well actually maybe we do and what´s more maybe you dont like some of the posts because they don´t support the Brazilian fantasy and hubris, but instead of attacking the messanger, why dont you consider the message and stop defending the indefensable!

Another thing many Brazilians should consider when shouting about foreigners bkeeping their "hands off our beloved Amazon" type of attitude, Europe has replanted its forests to the levels of Pre-industrial revolution.... Yes there are more trees now! Oh and not everywhere was forrested like the Amazon, Canadian and Siberian forrests prior to human inhabitation.

So dense forrests are not the norm on the plannet, see Africa, Antartica, Greenland, Australia.... so thats why globally there is a reaction to this willful disregard to the environment! THINK!.... and please don´t shoot the messanger because you dont like the message!

Again, you must learn text interpretation,considering all the words, not suggesting I wrote what I didn´t, just to create an enemy and a "reason" to fight, although I´m aware your attitude is a trend these days:
"Thomas, YOU evidently don´t know that the "Brazilian" company you are referring to is in turn owned by a Belgian and Czech company."

Where did I said it was a Brazilian company??Where, please tell me??
I said it "was controlled BY BRAZILIANS", go back there and read again and again, till you get it.

This is just one example and I was considering the local EXPERTISE, that there are lots of ambitious people in Brazil making money elsewhere, because the opportunities ARE WAY BETTER there, I was clearly criticizing the BRAZILIAN environment for great bushiness, and I can´t believe I have to explain that again and again.

Before you even start whining again, let me say that I much prefer the USA/Europe/Taiwan business environments(not always the political ones as they change a lot, in different ways and different nations). The USA is my favorite by far, even though I understand some people hate it, for several reasons.
One thing you simply can´t understand, is that, for example, many AMERICANS(some pools show something like 55%) are ferocious critics of the American business environment(maybe because most of them are unaware of how awful is outside there).
And many of THEM would be totally against any kind of investment in Brazil.

And in the case suggested by the original post, Central Valley, I found that an awful investment to Brazil, just that.
No roads, no equipment, no skilled workers, huge costs, huge distances etc...
I eat carrots from Bakerfield, California, because they are cheaper and more tasteful than the carrots from my city in Brazil.
I live in São Paulo, just some miles away from CEAGESP(enormous distribution center for vegetables, groceries, fruits, flowers, fish etc to the 11 million population here). The most impressive thing there to me, is how much waste is left after the daily activities, tons and tons.
Just 40% of what is produced in the Brazilian agriculture end up in someones table, the rest is wasted, somewhere, somehow.

How come Brazil will create a BUSINESS like Central Valley, if something like 60% of all national production is wasted? How would you convince international investors to put their money in a business like this?

My main point is that without a decent environment, it won´t matter if the entrepreneur is Brazilian, American, Japanese or Russian, they will always fail.

You could blame the politicians, or their voters, but, at least from my point of view, businessmen want to make money, to grown their businesses, they won´t copy a successful case if their local environment, government, policies and infrastructure are different. This is just basic.

Then you wrote several sentences that don´t even have anything at all with what I wrote, probably that "stuff" just pop out you head and you typed it, wishing I would say something you would gladly disagree. I hope that made your day happier, sincerely.

There are many risky places inside urban areas in Brazil. Population should not be there but unfortunately that is the case. Frequently during rainy seasons, many are condenmed to death. Local authorities know the risks and their responsibilities. Simply those families should not be alowed to settle in these areas. This is the environment regarding farming and similar illegal land practices in Brazil. If nothing has been done to save people in the cities, why would a law change and protect the environment and avoid irregular farming and deforesting, thousand miles away from Rio and Sao Paulo?

Sorry, but my farm friends have been fined because they cut some sick and dying trees thousand miles from Rio and Sao Paulo. One spent a night in jail because he was trying to stop a fire in his farm and the environment authority thought he was involved. These places might look huge and impossible to control to the urban residents, but local people notice most of whats going on there. Thats why the farmers are taking this really seriously.

That´s an interesting side of the story. I do want the Amazon to be preserved not only in Brasil but in every country but I must say that is quite unfair with your acquaintances. I was wonderign mate...what do farmers think about the law?

Some of them are scared, specially the smaller ones, because they will not have the money or help to recover their areas. Environment recovering costs much more then to prevent environment destruction. Some big farmers don´t care too much if the law goes hard, as their production is big enough to compensate(lots of them will complain, its free to complain).
Just reminding that less than 25% of all Brazil is pasture, and less than 10% is used for agriculture. Most of the agribusiness is concentrated from the South till the Center West of the country, not in the Amazon region. This is not a law targeting the Amazon region, like many foreign are thinking. The target is Brazil as a whole.
Economically speaking, if you are not a farmer, its like your city mayor passing a law ordering everyone to built parking spaces for the equivalent number of people in each company. If you have money, you just do it to avoid get fined, maybe complaining. If you don´t have money and you company is kind of broke, it gets harder...

There are many risky places inside urban areas in Brazil. Population should not be there but unfortunately that is the case. Frequently during rainy seasons,many are condenmed to death. Local authorities know the risks and their responsibilities. Simply those families should not be alowed to settle in these areas. This is the environment regarding farming and similar illegal land practices in Brazil. If nothing has been done to save people in the cities, why would a law change and protect the environment and avoid irregular farming and deforesting, thousand miles away from Rio and Sao Paulo?

Ah, the delights of government propaganda... Why is it that Congress is deemed to enshrine the people's will when it approves laws supported by the Executive branch, but not when it approves laws that branch opposes?

And to what extent did Dilma really opposed this law? Well, her 40-minister, 13-party coalision has enough Congress firepower to declare her a queen if she so wanted (probsably coming soon). And the congressman who drafted this law came from her support base and is a minister in her Administration. Thus, I suspect she was actually happy with the new code as it is - the buzz about her disappointment is just a mask to appease the rabid environmental lobbies that support her party.